I predict that this new type of reactor cannot be shut down and restated because a significant fraction of the nickel particles has had their tubules melted off and many nickel micro-particles are now resurfaced as relatively smooth.
Furthermore, if this reactor is cooled by a liquid based transfer fluid, it will shut down and not startup again. This reactor is effectively burnt out and cannot stand cooler running anymore. Could this be why the testers did not go through a startup/shutdown cycle and use a coolant based calorimetry method in their test? As a capability test for a commensal product, this test is very weak. On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > To get a valid overview of the entire transmutation process, the testers > must look at a complete sample of the fuel, not just a few nickel > particles. There could be other nuclear processes going on away from the > nickel particles. The testers have made an assumption that the reaction > must be local to the nickel micro-particles. This is a bad assumption and > could lead to a misrepresentation of the transmutation results. > > On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The efficiency of uranium pellets is only about 4% because of the >>> deterioration of the zirconium cladding that encloses the uranium. >>> >> >> That is true. So that means 4% of 29% of the pellet would be used up >> (transmuted). That's ~1%. A pellet weighs "~ 7 g total, with ~ 0.3 g >> U-235." >> >> http://epsc221.wustl.edu/Lectures/221L36.pdf >> >> So I guess that's about 3 mg of transmuted uranium? That's a lot of >> material. It would dead simple to find that much in an analysis. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
